W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Burdett ML gap/fit analysis - first cut

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:09:50 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081257@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <jdart@tibco.com>
Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

David,

I think I understand your levels. At the same time, your classification makes me think that we need to better clarify how our choreography is grounded on WSDL. In particular, we should clearly specify if and when the specific message descriptors defined in WSDL interfaces can be used (including things like abstract XPath selectors) when talking about messages exchanged within our choreographies.

Without this clarification, many people would naturally infer from the WDSL grounding that our choreography deals with messages at level 2.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:45 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; jdart@tibco.com
> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Burdett ML gap/fit analysis - first cut
> 
> 
> Ugo
> 
> I was really thinking more of the abstract binding where a 
> choreography is
> bound to abstract messages. Except I am *not sure* that port/interface
> levels are sufficiently abstract as you could have the same 
> sequence of
> messages exchanged for the same purpose only they go between 
> services with
> different port types/interfaces.
> 
> I think there are three levels:
> 1. The pure choreography - i.e. independent of the message 
> formats and also
> the port types/interfaces
> 2. Choreography bound to an abstract interface/port type
> 3. Interface/port type bound to a specific implementation
> 
> Do these levels make sense?
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:15 PM
> To: Burdett, David; jdart@tibco.com
> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Burdett ML gap/fit analysis - first cut
> 
> 
> 
> Dave,
> You said:
> 
> > Also a choreography should be able to work with multiple 
> different message
> > formats therefore including a reference to single message 
> format directly
> > into the choreography could be problematical.
> 
> This depends on at which level you are talking about 
> messages. If you are
> talking at the level of abstract messages (i.e. 
> portType/Interface level in
> WSDL), then our choreography is based on those message 
> descriptions (this
> comes directly from our own definition of Web services 
> choreography, i.e.
> the fact that it is grounded on WSDL) and it should be 
> legitimate to talk
> about those abstract message formats within the choreography itself.
> 
> If you are talking about concrete message formats (after the 
> WSDL interfaces
> defined in the choreography are bound to specific end points) 
> then I agree
> with you that the choreography should not depend on them.
> 
> Ugo
>  
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 16:10:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:25 GMT